On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:21:45PM +0000, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 2021, at 5:49 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 23:41 -0500, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> >> In preparation for returning either the existing
> >> restrict_link_by_builtin_and_secondary_trusted or the upcoming
> >> restriction that includes the trusted builtin, secondary and
> >> machine keys, to improve clarity, rename
> >> get_builtin_and_secondary_restriction to get_secondary_restriction.
> >>
> >> Suggested-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> v6: Initial version
> >> v7: Unmodified from v7
> >> v8: Code unmodified from v7, added Mimi's Reviewed-by
> >> ---
> >> certs/system_keyring.c | 4 ++--
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/certs/system_keyring.c b/certs/system_keyring.c
> >> index 692365dee2bd..8f1f87579819 100644
> >> --- a/certs/system_keyring.c
> >> +++ b/certs/system_keyring.c
> >> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ int restrict_link_by_builtin_and_secondary_trusted(
> >> * Allocate a struct key_restriction for the "builtin and secondary trust"
> >> * keyring. Only for use in system_trusted_keyring_init().
> >> */
> >> -static __init struct key_restriction *get_builtin_and_secondary_restriction(void)
> >> +static __init struct key_restriction *get_secondary_restriction(void)
> >> {
> >> struct key_restriction *restriction;
> >>
> >> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static __init int system_trusted_keyring_init(void)
> >> KEY_USR_VIEW | KEY_USR_READ | KEY_USR_SEARCH |
> >> KEY_USR_WRITE),
> >> KEY_ALLOC_NOT_IN_QUOTA,
> >> - get_builtin_and_secondary_restriction(),
> >> + get_secondary_restriction(),
> >> NULL);
> >> if (IS_ERR(secondary_trusted_keys))
> >> panic("Can't allocate secondary trusted keyring\n");
> >
> > This is wrong order.
> >
> > You should first do the changes that make the old name
> > obsolete and only after that have a patch that does the
> > rename. Unfortunately, this patch cannot possibly acked
> > with the current order.
>
> I can change the order, but I'm confused how this would work for a git bisect.
> If the rename happens afterwards, now two patches will always need to be
> reverted instead of the possibility of one. Is this your expectation?
I'd drop this patch altogether. Old name is a bit ugly but does it matter
all that much?
You already 16 patches without this.
/Jarkko
